climate always changes

due mainly to variations in solar cycles, also geothermal activities like undersea volcanoes; locally patterns can be upset by deforestation, which has been extensive in SE Asia; a genuine independent survey of uncensored scientific publications concludes that anthropogenic co2 is not the culprit. it's a scam for the new world order to impose carbon taxation after the global capitalist economy melts down.

Attention Illuminati

Damn, Max has discovered our plan. Let's switch to Plan B, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy_theory%29

max von schtuptt - the

max von schtuptt - the rapture any day now

For the one or two commentators not on the take

American Freepress Excerpt from “Global Warming” 2010 Bilderberg Final Report

"They are still trying to exploit the myth of 'global warming' to establish a world 'Department of Energy' although one mourned that 'we are about whipped on climate change.' Leading climatologists say fluctuations in Earth’s temperature are natural. 'Global warming' claims are a fraud, they say."

"A newly leaked internal document outlines how Spain’s ‘green economy initiatives’ have been a financial disaster, reported David E. Robinson, in his newsletter Brunswick Bits Abound. The report 'suggests that the real rate of job losses as a result of green policies is in fact worse than the 2.2 jobs lost for every one gained and that the green economy must be abandoned if the country is to save itself from economic ruin,” Robinson stated.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bilderberg_meets_in_spain_225.html

Where's mopled?

This sort of story usually brings him out in spades.

Must be on holidays.

And the proof that CO2 is the cause is where?

"Experts blamed the El Nino weather phenomenon for the sever drought in these regions.

El Nino, or El Nino-Southern Oscillation phenomenon, is a climate pattern. It occurs across the tropical Pacific Ocean on average every five years. When El Nino occurs, there are droughts, floods and other weather disturbances.

Xiao Ziniu, director of the Chinese National Climate Center, said the drought in southwest China was caused by less-than-normal rainfall and continuous high temperature, resulting from the El Nino weather pattern in the tropical Pacific Ocean since last Summer.

He predicted the drought would continue for the coming days or even weeks.

Some Vietnamese meteorologists also said the return of El Nino weather phenomenon is the main reason of the drought. The Vietnam Institute of Hydro Meteorology and Environment said current drought is an aftermath of the El Nino.

The institute said that the return of El Nino brought an unusually warm and dry winter last year, and the early end to the wet season last year and little rainfall in the first months of this year resulted the severe drought.

The Philippines authorities also held the El Nino phenomenon responsible for the country's crops losses and drop of water level, which caused power crisis.

Water levels in some of the Philippine largest dams are plunging to critical weather levels on back of the El Nino-induced dryspell, the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) said Monday.

Echoing the same view, Chairman of the Foundation for National Disaster Warning System of Thailand (NDWST) Smith Dharmasaroja said the nationwide drought together with the currently significant drop in Mekong River's water level can be attributed to the El Nino weather phenomenon and global warming.

The World Bank and Philippine officials predicted that the El Nino is expected to persist until June this year.

However, some experts are worrying that the seasonal rains might be postponed by the El Nino, causing more damage to the agricultural sectors."

http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2010-03/27/content_19698549.htm

Climate Change

Unfortunately although the results of climate change can be seen in Asia, the cause(s) are more complex than just CO2. It is simply not feasible that just one gas is the cause of all the high temperatures, droughts, so-called extreme weather events etc.

El Nino is just one factor effecting climate that we don't understand.

More to the point of the article is that man is affecting climate with massive deforestation, drawing down aquifers much faster than they can be replenished, damming and diverting rivers. The massive three gorges dam in China must be having some kind of effect on regional weather, and the deforestation in Indonesia (remember the deliberately set fires of only a few years ago ?), not to mention the unrelenting draw down of Indian aquifers, not only by Coca Cola, but also by the over one billion people in India who need water. Is it possible that Malthus was right ?

planetary explosion

the naked ape has become a force shaping the planet; his hardwired programming doubtlesly ensures his own demise; and after that restoration of what remains, dandelions, cockroaches, dogs, rats...

Not a single outcry from the “environmentalists” about BP

The worst ecological disaster in history could be unfolding in the gulf and these phony “environmentalists” haven’t mentioned a peep about BP, not a single investigative article about this disaster on tyee, but they’re still trying to revive a dead horse with this global warming scam (following the Bilderberg mandate to a tee).

As pointed out in excerpts from this William Engdahl article:

“That deafening silence of leading green or ecology organizations such as Greenpeace, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club and others may well be tied to a money trail that leads right back to the oil industry, notably to BP. Leading environmental organizations have gotten significant financial payoffs in recent years from BP in order that the oil company could remake itself with an “environment-friendly face,” as in “beyond petroleum” the company’s new branding.

“The Nature Conservancy, described as “the world’s most powerful environmental group,”10 has awarded BP a seat on its International Leadership Council after the oil company gave the organization more than $10 million in recent years. .”

….That could explain why the political outcry to date for decisive action in the Gulf has been so muted.”
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2010/0610.html

Keep up the charade fellas… even though the fishermen in the Gulf are being slowly poisoned to death by BP’s chemical dispersants you just keep letting your love shine for mother earth as you've been told to.

Global Warming Advocacy Science: A Cross Examination

by:
Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School
Robert G. Fuller, Jr. Professor and Director,
Program on Law, Environment and Economy
University of Pennsylvania Law School
Initial Draft, September, 2008. May, 2010 Version.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/06/legal-verdict-manmade-global-warming-science-doesn’t-withstand-scrutiny/#ixzz0qKA3gJCU
Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny
Lawrence Solomon
"A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny.

The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.”

Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.”

The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-made global warming, can be found here."
http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf

G West: Damn you for calling up this demon

But at least we know how to scroll through his/her posts.
I could (but would not bother) to write such comments:
"Blah, Blah, Blah
BLAH,BLAH
Blah"
Let's keep working on something sensible.
By the way: I don't really want to conjure him up but:
Where is "B.C. Boy"

Carbon Currency

Now that the general populace has decided to buy in to the " carbon will cook us " scenario, I'm sure a few of the wealthy will become wealthier using this new currency. What a great invention to distract and detract from the real truth of the matter, being that, the more money that passes through one's hands means the more resources one consumes, period. Therefore and quite plainly, the more that one consumes means that someone or something will be suffering the consequences resulting from the effluent carbon or mercury, benzene and any other toxin resulting from our consumption. Nobody will convince us greedy capitalists that money is bad but carbon makes for a great scapegoat.

doggone

Thank you. Best laugh I've had today; actually, second best - the top laugh came when I heard Campbell's response to Blair Lekstrom's resignation...

Cheers

What people think

The idea that the blush has come off the climate change rose for the general public is yet another untruth looking for purchase in the public imagination, but with little success. Most people are quite clear on both the problem and the impediments to the solution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/opinion/09krosnick.html

"Passing the resolution might seem to be exactly what Americans want. After all, national surveys released during the last eight months have been interpreted as showing that fewer and fewer Americans believe that climate change is real, human-caused and threatening to people.

But a closer look at these polls and a new survey by my Political Psychology Research Group show just the opposite: huge majorities of Americans still believe the earth has been gradually warming as the result of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop it."

The Carbon bubble has burst, all you Warmbots

U.S. Northeast Carbon Permits Draw Record Low Price (Update4)(Bloomberg) -- Carbon dioxide permits in the U.S. Northeast’s cap-and-trade program tumbled to a record low price at auction amid a surplus of the pollution rights and doubts that Congress will create a national emissions market this year.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative sold 40.7 million permits for $1.88 each, 19 cents lower than the last auction held in March and 2 cents above the minimum allowable bid, the cap-and-trade program said on its website today. Each permit in the carbon trading program for power plants from Maryland to Maine represents one ton of carbon dioxide.

Those permits come from the regional carbon trading program’s first phase, or “control period,” from 2009 to 2011. This week’s auction, held June 9 with the results withheld until today, also offered 2.14 million permits from the 2012-to-2014 control period. They went for $1.86.

“Prices are a lot lower than expected,” Tim Cheung, an analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance in New York, said in a telephone interview. “Demand for power hasn’t increased with the economic recovery and that means there’s an oversupply of permits in the market.” more
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-11/u-s-northeast-carbon-permits-draw-record-low-price-update4-.html

Will you manage to keep the BC sheep in line for a while longer while the Pacific Carbon Trust...a Crown Corporation...charges hospitals and schools $25 a ton forproducing a beneficial trace gas that makes plants grow.

What a scam you all are supporting.

soleprobe

Actually, because of the BP disaster there's been a couple of stories on the Tyee about oil tankers and offshore drilling.

As for environmentalists in general, I haven't seen any unwillingness on their part to vent on that subject.

Thirdly, its news to me that you think the oil in the Gulf of Mexico is a problem since you're always defending fossil fuels, telling us their effect on the environment is benign.

mopled

I've seen some pictures from the Gulf and so far it looks to me like a bad thing. I haven't seen any evidence yet, or any BP or government spokespeople saying that setting fire to the oil would be a boon for the environment as you claim it would be.

Perhaps you should call BP up and tell them that all they have to is torch the oil slicks, produce huge amounts of CO2 and then sit back and watch the Gulf bloom.

Since BP has also financed the Climate Scam

their little "accident" is very interesting.

Such amazing coinky-dinks! Goldman Sachs, which planned to be the top broker for carbon trades, dumped 43% of its BP stock a short time before the blowout.

The silence about the amounts BP has been doling out to NGOs who denounce Exxon's penny-pinching support of skeptics has been interesting.

“[T]he Nature Conservancy lists BP as one of its business partners. The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years,” Joe Stephens wrote for the Washington Post May 24.

It’s not just Nature Conservancy either, the Post found $2 million in donations to Conservation International and relationships between BP and other lefty activist groups Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Sierra Club and Audubon.

“The crude emanating from BP's well threatens to befoul a number of alliances between energy conglomerates and environmental nonprofits. At least one group, Conservation International, acknowledges that it is reassessing its ties to the oil company, with an eye toward protecting its reputation,” the Post said.

This was front page news at The Post on May 24, but received only silence from other mainstream media outlets including the three broadcast networks. Even after the oil spill, when the networks interviewed experts from two of the groups that had partnered with BP, reporters failed to make the connection. In the past, the research of conservative organizations has been undermined by reporters for such corporate contributions."
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100602161253.aspx

Now we know that BP and Shell were the original funding providers which got the CRU of Climategate fame established. The place where all the temperature data was fiddled for the IPCC.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

There is oil all over the climate scam.

The Mopled Law

I think it's time to come up with a new law to characterize any/all Tyee comments sections related to climate change...

Something that might combine the ideas of cognitive dissonance with Godwin's law. The longer a Tyee discussion section on climate change goes, the more likely it will end with a data-cherry-picking pseudo-scientist like mopled, janie jones or soleprobe talking to themselves, whilst accusing everyone else -- who have long since left the building -- of being part of eco-conspiracy with tentacles reaching to Area 54 in New Mexico, 9/11 Truth and Oliver Stone's bedroom....

Anyone else wanna take a shot at this?

mopled

You didn't respond so I'll say it again. Why doesn't some part of your "majority" simply tell BP to torch the oil?

Just like when Saddam's people set the wells on fire in Kuwait all that CO2 will be good for the environment, right?

CO2 is not the issue about burning the oil

It is really a question of whether it is more toxic to the air and ocean from the open-air combustion of hydrocarbons...Like you don't know that!

[INFLAMMATORY COMMENT DIRECTED AT ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

Interlocking directorates are always problematic

Peter Sutherland is chairman of BP plc (1997 – current). He is also chairman of Goldman Sachs International (1995 – current). He was appointed chairman of the London School of Economics in 2008…. Before these appointments, he was the founding director-general of the World Trade Organisation. He had previously served as director general of GATT since July 1993 ….

Sutherland resigned as BP’s chairman in 2009, but apparently still serves in various key capacities.

Sutherland is managing director – as well as chairman – of Goldman Sachs International (Goldman Sachs International is the very powerful subsidiary of the Goldman Sachs Group, of which Lloyd Blankfein is CEO). Sutherland is also an Advisory Director of the Goldman Sachs Group itself.

And he is European Chairman for the Trilateral Commission.

He has, at various times, attended meetings of the Bilderberg group.
http://www.trilateral.org/membship/bios/ps.htm

In defence of mopled

The Devil is always in the details.

Green BP, Friend to Green NGOs, supporter of the Climate Scam

"Since 2007, according to analysis by the Center for Public Integrity, BP has received 760 citations for "egregious and willful" safety violations – those "committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health." The rest of the oil industry combined has received a total of one.

The company applied the same deadly cost-cutting mentality to its oil rig in the Gulf. BP, it is important to note, is less an oil company than a bank that finances oil exploration; unlike ExxonMobil, which owns most of the equipment it uses to drill, BP contracts out almost everything. That includes the Deepwater Horizon rig that it leased from a firm called Transocean. BP shaved $500,000 off its overhead by deploying a blowout preventer without a remote-control trigger – a fail-safe measure required in many countries but not mandated by MMS, thanks to intense industry lobbying. It opted to use cheap, single-walled piping for the well, and installed only six of the 21 cement spacers recommended by its contractor, Halliburton – decisions that significantly increased the risk of a severe explosion. It also skimped on critical testing that could have shown whether explosive gas was getting into the system as it was being cemented, and began removing mud that protected the well before it was sealed with cement plugs."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=4
Remember Premier Mossadegh of Iran was brought down by the CIA at BPs request in 1953
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

When the CIA Overthrew Iran for British Petroleum
http://www.opednews.com/articles/When-the-CIA-Overthrew-Ira-by-Bill-Hare-100511-809.html

couple of stories on the Tyee about oil tankers

I seen em before I posted... Wow... how timely and pertinent…

"since you're always defending fossil fuels, telling us their effect on the environment is benign"

And that statement is a lie... it's CO2 and its effect on global warming/climate change that I discussed here and you know it..

[INFLAMMATORY COMMENT DIRECTED AT ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

Political Psychology Research Group

Well, sure. OK. I'll swallow my tax increase based on what those folks say.

The NY Times.

Coming from the rag that helped bring us the invasion of Iraq. Ya Right.

soleprobe

[INFLAMMATORY COMMENT DIRECTED AT ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

Greenbots and Gatekeepers

Interesting that every discussion about the burning of fossil fuels attracts the same people who accuse everyone else of being gatekeepers even though they themselves don't post on any other topic.

There's a reason why everyone on the Tyee forums ignores you and its because you have no credibility. To build some up you might try discussing other issues now and then so that people might see you as more rounded.

On the other hand, if you do post on other topics and whether its education, healthcare, internet privacy or whatever all you have to say is that everyone else is a gatekeeper for the men that want to enslave the world then I doubt that would help your case here.

Since soleprobe is already in that latter category, as his rare posts on other topics demonstrates, there's not much hope for him.

A good article

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=3109623&sponsor=

The article is by Dan Gardner and his visit to the the joint annual congress of the Canadian Geophysical Union and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society which happened to be held in Ottawa this year.

I think the best part of the article is finding out that scientists on different sides don't call each other "gatekeeper".

Ah Frankie,

Are you seriously presenting that puff piece as confirmation that the scam isn't falling apart?

When the man who advocated an attitude of Post Modern Science to "Cimate Change" jumps off, you know the bandwagon is crashing.

Lawrence Solomon writes just today:

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

"The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hilme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here."
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG[1].pdf

mopled

Yes. I realized when I posted it that you would not be interested unless the meeting degenerated into a fistfight and your climate scientists beat up my climate scientists but I thought I'd post it anyway.

Strangely, in spite of you posting the phrases "the bandwagon is crashing" and "the fraud has been exposed" for a couple of years now the numbers of actual climate scientists believing in man-made climate change has increased.

Fancy that.

Our resident one-topic-ponies

Almost like you guys are being paid to be, *gasp*, gatekeepers for the fossil-fuel industry?

The only thing that explains why you're here since its certainly not because of your interest in any other topic on the Tyee.

I just exposed British Petroleum as being behind

the Climate Scam...has your trolley gone off the track? Does the Greenbot have a slipped gear? Does the Gatekeeper not see the fence is gone?

BP is behind the climate scam

That's super.

Once the climate scientists themselves believe that instead of believing in man-made climate change I'll believe it too.

Until then you've got soleprobe on your side.

Suffice to say, this is one Greenbot that will continue to guard the gate.

By the way

How's the other expose's going? The one proving that the World Trade Centre was was full of explosives before the planes were hijacked and the one proving that the world will never run out of oil?

I should also have included Shell

Both BP and Shell contributed to found CRU which cooked the data, which fed the IPCC. CRU also said they lost the original raw data. Nobody seems to have raw data anymore. No RAW data, no evidence of anything, let allon "catastrophic global warming".

Speaking of no evidence....Frank, what's your reference for: "for a couple of years now the numbers of actual climate scientists believing in man-made climate change has increased."

All you can manage to come up with is straw man and ad hominem arguments and an opinion piece from the Ottawa Citizen.

And your proof that CO2 can change the climate is?

mopled

In other words you want to write off what actual climate scientists say because you don't like the vehicle that carried the story.

There's an easy fix for that problem, go talk to the scientists at the conference yourself. The last one was in Ottawa, I don't know where the next one is but I'm sure its not far, google it. A few hundred bucks at most to get there.

When you get them to put out a news release saying they don't believe in man-made climate change you'll convince the world, not just me.

Until then you have nothing except your cut-and-pastes from various blogs that jump from one conspiracy theory to the next depending on the phases of the moon.

"And your proof that CO2 can change the climate is?"

My proof is the same as my proof for gravity, scientists say so.

Oh, Holy Mother Gaia

"My proof is the same as my proof for gravity, scientists say so."

What scientists?

Are you joking? There is nobody left!

Frank, you are just too funny and obvious

You asked about the 9/11 Truth Movement?

http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/news/41-articles/297-griffin-a-gage-pair-up-energize-911-truth-in-canada.html

The Gulf Disaster has brought the topic of abiotic oil to the fore again.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article165797.html#article165797

[INFLAMMATORY COMMENT DIRECTED AT ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

How's the other expose's going?

you mean this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8InITc81do&feature=player_embedded

"What scientists?" Those

"What scientists?"

Those would be the ones attending joint annual congress of the Canadian Geophysical Union and the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society.

"Are you joking? There is nobody left!"

Seriously, you need to include a wider variety of sources in your monthly reading.

As for the WTC and never ending oil nice to see you're still in there plugging away.

mopled

"I apologize for providing real information. I'm not a "creative writer" like you seem to be."

Yes, because voltairenet and 911truth.org are so much more credible than the Ottawa Citizen and the joint annual congress of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society.

That's Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

And William Engdahl
"Author of Gods of Money: Wall Street and the Death of the American Century and Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. His other books include Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. and A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order."

I suspect none of them is on Environment Canada's payroll as I imagine most of the members of your cute and cuddly Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society are.

"The Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis is a division of the Climate Research Branch of Environment Canada's Meteorological Service Climate Modelling and Analysis
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis

The Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) is a division of the Climate Research Branch of Environment Canada. CCCma is located on the second floor of the Bob Wright Building on the campus of the University of Victoria (see the university and Wright Centre maps). Learn more about Victoria and how to reach us.

There are pages in this section which give an overview of the Division's activities and describe opportunities for post doctoral positions and graduate study."
http://www.ec.gc.ca/ccmac-cccma/default.asp?lang=En

Who in their right mind would buck a money flow like that?

Only the very well established or the retired dare speak out.

Since we are playing "show me your experts".

Here are some of the 95 International experts who signed the Climate Scientists' Register.

“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."

1. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
2. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
3. J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa
4. Bjarne Andresen, Dr. Scient., physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a "global temperature", Professor, Niels Bohr Institute (areas of specialization: fundamental physics and chemistry, in particular thermodynamics), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
5. Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Alberta, Canada
6. Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
7. Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD (Earth Science), Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
8. David Bellamy, OBE, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, U.K.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=289

Who do you have who hasn't been tainted by Climategate?

mopled

Fact is, you discount the opinion of EVERY scientist in the world whom you disagree with. Any scientist I could offer you consider to be a gatekeeper.

You discount the opinions of every scientist in Canada because you "bet" they're on the payroll of Environment Canada, as if that's a bad thing. Yet, you don't even know if they are, you simply "bet" they are and that's good enough for you.

Well strangely, its not good enough for me. Unlike you, I'm willing to listen to what Canada's scientific bodies have to say.

Face it mopled, the phrase "gatekeeper" applies to you and your fellow travelers more than it does to Canada's scientists. The only opinion you value are the ones your fellow bloggers dig up to support your position.

It says a lot that 99% of your posts are about conspiracies, and none of it is good.

[INFLAMMATORY COMMENT REMOVED HERE... ]

[...AND HERE. -MODERATOR.]

The fact is, there has never been a serious poll of Canada's scientists on this issue and to pretend that there IS a consensus or that consensus itself is meaningful in science is just more lovely balderdash. The Ottawa Citizen article you present even says:
"Admittedly, casual conversation at a cocktail party is not a rigorous methodology for determining the state of scientific opinion."

That's your proof of blanket support for AGW among Canadian Scientists?

You are out-doing yourself in the fine art of obfuscation.

Also, may I remind you that the official explanation of 9/11 IS a Conspiracy Theory and the US military is guarding poppy fields and raw opium so the drug trade can continue, while Canadians die in a war you have supported.

Fighting for Democracy and Mother Earth, are we?

Frankie Baby...what Obscurantist fiddle-faddle.

EVERYBODY KNOWS AND RECOGNIZES THE CLIMATE CHANGES ALL THE BLOODY TIME.

The REAL QUESTION is whether CO2, specifically, human generated CO2, is responsible.

Also, here is a major problem with the NASA and NOAA numbers, according to skeptical researchers who have dissected the data: They are inaccurate, the result of cherry-picking, computer manipulation and “best guess” interpretation.

Veteran meteorologist Joe D’Aleo – a long-time critic of official global-warming statistics – says NASA and NOAA are manipulating the data, calling their actions the U.S. version of last year’s Climategate scandal.

"The root of the problem? NOAA’s network for measuring temperature in the United States has become corrupted by artificial heat sources and other issues. These problems introduce warm biases into the temperature measurements that are then used by the government and others to support manmade global warming. So as a reaction to criticism about these problems … NOAA now claims that the accuracy of the measured temperature no longer matters!"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/12/art-horn-a-remarkable-statement-from-noaa/

Now that is Post Modern Science at its most blatant. The NOAA statement is flabergasting:

"For detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature — whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station placed on grass — but how that temperature changes over time."

The number of Canadian, and Russian) weather stations reporting has been reduced, giving a warm bias to recent data. Not only that, but it is doubtful that many records are accurate anyway.
"For numerous reasons many reports were fabricated. No one imagined their fabrications would comprise a data set that would, in future years, be used to detect minor global warming trends and trigger a panic in the world."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/17/fabricating-temperatures-on-the-dew-line/

mopled

The Ottawa Citizen article got that information from actual Canadian scientists at the conference. It was their educated opinion as to the status of those in the room. You get your opinions from blogs for loonies.

Guess which one I'll take seriously?

Fact is, by far the majority of those Canadian scientists at that conference and the United States National Academy of Sciences, among many others, believes that human civilization is having an effect on the climate.

As for NASA and NOAA data being the result of "cherry picking", that's rich since you have no equal when it comes to cherry picking. Again, if I have to decide between your cherry-picked articles and NASA's data guess which one I'm going to listen to?

Apologies for appearing so one-dimensional

“… because you have no credibility. To build some up you might try discussing other issues now and then so that people might see you as more rounded.”

Because I resemble that remark … and heaven forbid, my world will probably fall apart if I should loose credibility and appear less “rounded” to others on the Tyee forum … let’s discuss another issue.

Well, OK, it’s not quite another issue but for the sake of argument let’s all agree and say that the pro-AGW scientists are right; human activity is altering the climate.

When you consider:

- Growth and survival of the capitalist's industrialized world depends upon cheap energy, oil in particular.
- Alternate energy forms cannot replace the quantity of energy we obtain from existing liquid energy forms.
- The cost of building alternate energy infrastructure to meet current demand is prohibitive.
- The lifestyle changes that must be made by those living in affluent societies, in order to bring CO2 concentrations back to the pre-industrialized levels that will allow life on this planet to keep on keepin’ on, means great pain for most folks.
- The time required to shift to new energy modes … Gen IV nuclear is still 20 years away and enormously expensive … is longer than the remaining life of cheap oil.

How do you propose to reduce CO2 output to levels within a time frame that will prevent catastrophic climate change? Changing light bulbs? Electric cars? Using paper bags instead of plastic? Living on a “hundred mile diet”? Political dictatorship?

BTW, I believe human activity is contributing to climate change. Unfortunately I haven’t seen any evidence that those most responsible are voluntarily and significantly changing their habits. I haven’t seen any evidence that our policy makers are voluntarily changing their habits.

The personal financial costs are too great, that's why there's such an outcry from those that don't believe in AGW as well the majority of that do subscribe. Follow the money.

KWD

How to reduce levels of CO2 is an entirely different subject than whether man is causing climate change.

If not liking the end result is what makes people not believe in man-made climate change then that would be akin to me not believing in smallpox. They're free to believe in it or not but in the end smallpox and the climate don't care.

But since you brought it up, I don't believe its possible for civilization as we know it to be saved.

Look at many of the Greens here in BC cheering the destruction of rivers to feed our growing population.

With that level of thinking around us I see little in the way of hope.

KWD...assuming you mean well

Since human activity only accounts for 3% of the total in the air and the other 97% is there because of everything from ocean off-gassing to volcanos belching and the natural carbon cycle.

It makes no economic sense to do anything about so-called carbon foot prints. At only 3% of the total, we could all stop everything tomorrow and it would make little difference.

You say, "Follow the money,". We have...

THE CARBON TAX GOES INTO GENERAL REVENUE.

The ultimate destination of the "carbon offsets" BC government facilities,municipalities, schools and hospitals will be required to buy if they are not "carbon neutral" will ultimately go through Gore and Strong's Chicago Climate Exchange and then through Goldman-Sachs hands to the international carbon market.

Follow the money back to the same crew that brought
us the sub-prime mortgage market.

Frankenmopled

Frank, the smallpox analogy doesn't work for me.

Mopled, isn't it the personal well being of the individual, not Goldman-Sachs, that's driving the objection to carbon reduction?

The CAMPBELL TAX - please

It is not a CARBON TAX - it is a money laundry; it spins cash out of the pockets of people with little money and no choice and into the hands of groups with lots of money and no pressing need to make choices.

It means nothing - but business as usual; does nothing to reduce GHG emissions AND, actually hasn't reduced the production of CO2 by a single gram.

It leaves out the worst polluters and provides no leadership.

But, it has nothing whatever to do with the reality of AGW - and, this must be the 38th time I've had to post this message.

Apparently the ability to cut and paste does not pre-suppose a facility to read and understand.

KWD

Pick any analogy you like, its the same result. Just because you don't like the meaning doesn't mean you can ignore the problem.

I don't like Campbell either, but I accept he exists and can't be ignored.

Frank

I don't think I'm ignoring the problem. And it's not that I don't like the analogy. In the end dealing with smallpox boiled down to a simple remedy ... whether you beleived in it or not ... vaccination. As we're all aware, dealing with global warming or Campbell isn't quite as simple as getting vaccinated.

Nice summation G West, but if you think Cap and Trade is better

you are much mistaken, since it is more of "a
money laundry; it spins cash out of the pockets of people with little money and no choice and into the hands of groups with lots of money and no pressing need to make choices."

As for the cutting and pasting I do....it is far better than the pontificating that passes for information around here.

KWD, "isn't it the personal well being of the individual, not Goldman-Sachs, that's driving the objection to carbon reduction?"

Probably, I imagine few know how connected Goldman is to it, but people are capable of detecting such scams when things just don't add up. I suspect you are just trying to make skeptical taxpayers look like selfish penny pinchers.

Sending politicians to Bali in December a year ago and Mexico this coming winter does change the climate for them though.

more than penny pinching

If it were merely penny pinching no one, not even the taxpayer, would be too concerned. In fact it's the reality of economic disaster, that would unfold if we were serious about tackling GW, that backs the argument against CO2 reduction and keeps most of the believers from doing much about it.

KWD

But that's the same argument we have about a myriad of subjects including as child poverty. That the cost of fixing the problems are so high that we should simply accept the reality of them and cheer for the Canucks.

I don't think you're wrong to suggest that's what's happening because that is indeed probably it.

Which is why I think its something we'll accept like poverty and habitat loss and turning the ocean into a giant dead zone.

Unfortunately a population of 7 billion or more people is not going to survive climate change. But of course we'll accept that too when the time comes.

a matter of scale

The myriad of subjects, like child care, are orders of magnitude less expensive than dealing with climate change.

In fact in BC we could start dealing with child poverty by placing some of our politicians on a pork free diet and raiding their closets for clothing.

The way I read the auditor general we might have enough left over to deal with child education.

Hey, who says restricting energy will change climate, guys

That is the lunatic scam that Al Gore, the Guvernator and Gordo El Magnifico are pushing.

KWD...what has been the whole point of this thread?

That there is no evidence to support AGW If there were, Frank wouldn't be trying to pass off fluff pieces as evidence of scientific support for the scam.

KWD....maybe you should read this article:

Meet the green who doubts ‘The Science’
The author of Chill explains why he’s sceptical about manmade global warming — and why greens are so intolerant.
Excerpt:
"The real dynamic of the planet is to do with clouds, yet this area of science – oceanography and cloud cover – is incredibly uncertain. When I first looked at the basic science, the findings were surprising. Over the global warming period – which I limit to the past 50 or so years – the globe didn’t warm at all between 1950 and 1980, even though carbon dioxide emissions were going through the roof due to the postwar expansion of industry; global temperatures stayed pretty much flat.

The real global warming took off in the 1980s and 90s, through to about 2005. (In the last 10 years it’s actually plateaued.) That period of 25 years, from around 1980 to 2005, coincided with changes in the ocean and cloud cover – that is, there was less cloud and more sunlight getting through to the ocean. And this can be seen in the satellite data on the kind of energy that’s coming through (short-wave energy, which is the only energy that heats water – infra-red energy coming from CO2 cannot heat water). So when you look at the real-world data, the warming of that entire period seems to be due to additional sunlight reaching the oceans.

In 2007, I put out a report on this, in the hope of getting feedback before I published my book, Chill: A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory. Since then, top scientists at NASA have agreed that this period of warming over the past 25 years is entirely due to the short-wave radiation from sunlight, with the ocean transferring that heat to the land."
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/debates/copenhagen_article/8979

mopled

Thanks for the link. I've seen it before. It's not new,I think it's been refered to many times in past AGW discussions.

But, I like the part where Taylor claims, “Nobody is seriously saying that carbon dioxide has no effect whatsoever, but the defenders of the faith, as it were, set up a straw man. ‘These people’, they say, ‘think carbon dioxide has no effect’. Only a lunatic fringe thinks that.”

What is the real argument? What is the real ooutcome?

So, this article gives some examples of how things are changing in Asia. There is a connection made to climate change, and comments about worst since, hottest since - all of which suggest that it has been this hot/dry/wet in the past, at least since records were kept. Hey, anyone remember the fears of a coming ice-age?

So, having tossed a hook one way, let me toss one the other way. It is not just in Asia that things are changing for the worse - check out Mother Africa - drought abounds. I am disappointed the press at the World Cup hasn't spread to issues of climate and rainfall. (There is still enough water for Africans to see their water exported to Europe in the form of cut flowers, tea, and coffee... too bad its not Africans who at least own the companies...)

What is the real outcome? Too many people for an area to support always equals conflict. When people have no water, when they have no food, they will attempt to take from those who have them.

There are two questions about this conflict - first, when will it really begin, and second, how big will it get.

mopled

Keep trying.

When "unnamed top officials at NASA" actually go on the record saying man-made climate change is a hoax then you'll have something. Until then, sources like spiked-online wouldn't convince my budgie.

KWD

I disagree, I think combating poverty would take more resources than you think.

But in the end poverty and climate change and habitat loss etc all have the same source, the system itself. A system based on greed.

what about river diversion?

I don't know about all the countries, but in India a lot of the problem could be the diversion of major waterways as the cities have developed. Has anyone explored that as one reason for the disappearing lakes?

'The Last Taboo'

Relevant to the topic and a damn good read:

http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/05/population-growth-india-vatican?page=1